With particular zeal, the opportunists seized upon that argument of Rosa Luxemburg, that § 9 of our program contains nothing "practical." Rosa Luxemburg is so enamored of this argument that we sometimes encounter in her article the repetition of this "slogan" eight times on a single page.

§ 9 "provides," she writes, "no practical guidance for the everyday politics of the proletariat, no practical resolution of national problems."

Let us examine this argument, which is formulated further in such a way that § 9 either expresses absolutely nothing, or obliges us to support all national aspirations.

What does the demand for "practicality" in the national question signify?

Either support for all national aspirations; or the answer: "yes or no" to the question of the separation of each nation; or in general the immediate "feasibility" of national demands.

Let us examine all three possible meanings of the demand for "practicality."

The bourgeoisie, which naturally emerges at the beginning of every national movement as its hegemon (leader), calls the support of all national aspirations a practical matter. But the politics of the proletariat in the national question (as in all other questions) only supports the bourgeoisie in a certain direction, but never coincides with its politics. The working class supports the bourgeoisie only in the interests of national peace (which the bourgeoisie cannot provide fully and which is achievable only insofar as there is complete democratization), in the interests of equal rights, in the interests of the best conditions for class struggle. Therefore, it is precisely against the practicalism of the bourgeoisie that the proletariat puts forward a principled policy in the national question, always supporting the bourgeoisie only conditionally. Every bourgeoisie wants in national affairs either privileges for its own nation or exclusive advantages for it; this is what is called "practical." The proletariat is against all privileges, against all exclusivity. To demand "practicalism" from it means to follow in the wake of the bourgeoisie, to fall into opportunism.

To give the answer: "yes or no" to the question of the separation of each nation? This seems like a demand that is quite "practical." But in fact it is absurd, metaphysical in theory, and in practice leads to the subordination of the proletariat to the politics of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie always puts its national demands in the forefront. It puts them unconditionally. For the proletariat they are subordinated to the interests of class struggle. Theoretically, one cannot guarantee in advance whether the separation of a given nation or its equal standing with another nation will conclude the bourgeois-democratic revolution; for the proletariat what is important in both cases is to ensure the development of its class; for the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper this development, pushing its tasks before the tasks of "its" nation. Therefore, the proletariat limits itself to a negative, so to speak, demand—recognition of the right to self-determination—without guaranteeing any nation, without obligating itself to give anything with regard to another nation.

Let this not be "practical," but in fact it is most surely the guarantee of the most democratic of possible solutions; the proletariat needs only these guarantees, while the bourgeoisie of each nation needs guarantees of its advantages without regard to the position (to the possible drawbacks) of other nations.

For the bourgeoisie, the "feasibility" of a given demand is most interesting—hence the eternal politics of deals with the bourgeoisie of other nations at the expense of the proletariat. For the proletariat, on the other hand, what is important is the strengthening of its class against the bourgeoisie, the education of the masses in the spirit of consistent democracy and socialism.

Let this not be "practical" for opportunists, but this is the only guarantee in fact—a guarantee of maximum national equality and peace against both feudalists and nationalist bourgeoisie.

The entire task of the proletariat in the national question is "impractical" from the point of view of the nationalist bourgeoisie of each nation, because the proletariat demands "abstract" equality, the principled absence of the slightest privileges, being hostile to all nationalism. Not understanding this, Rosa Luxemburg, by her senseless eulogizing of practicalism, opened wide the gates precisely to opportunists, especially to opportunistic concessions to Great Russian nationalism.

Why to Great Russian? Because Great Russians in Russia are an oppressing nation, and in the national relationship, naturally, opportunism will be expressed differently among oppressed and among oppressing nations.

The bourgeoisie of oppressed nations, in the name of the "practicality" of its demands, will call on the proletariat for unconditional support of its aspirations. It is most "practical" to say a direct "yes," for the separation of such-and-such a nation, rather than for the right to separation of all and every nation!

The proletariat is against such practicalism: recognizing equal rights and equal right to a national state, it values above all and places the union of proletarians of all nations, evaluating from the angle of the class struggle of workers every national demand, every national separation. The slogan of practicalism is in fact merely the slogan of uncritical adoption of bourgeois aspirations.

We are told: in supporting the right to separation, you support the bourgeois nationalism of oppressed nations. So speaks Rosa Luxemburg, so repeats after her the opportunist Semkovsky—the only, incidentally, representative of liquidationist ideas on this question in the liquidationist newspaper!

We answer: no, it is precisely for the bourgeoisie that a "practical" solution is important here, while for the workers what is important is a principled distinction between two tendencies. Insofar as the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation fights with the oppressing nation, to that extent we are always and in every case and more decisively than all for it, because we are the boldest and most consistent enemies of oppression. Insofar as the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we are against it. Struggle with the privileges and violence of the oppressing nation and no tolerance whatsoever for the striving toward privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.

If we do not put forward and do not pursue in agitation the slogan of the right to separation, we shall play into the hands not only of the bourgeoisie, but also of the feudalists and absolutism of the oppressing nation. This argument Kautsky long ago advanced against Rosa Luxemburg, and this argument is irrefutable. Fearing to "help" the nationalist bourgeoisie of Poland, Rosa Luxemburg, by her denial of the right to separation in the program of Russian Marxists, actually helps the Black Hundreds of Great Russia. She actually helps the opportunistic reconciliation with the privileges (and worse than privileges) of Great Russians.

Carried away by the struggle against nationalism in Poland, Rosa Luxemburg forgot about the nationalism of Great Russians, although it is precisely this nationalism that is most frightening now, it is precisely this that is less bourgeois but more feudal, it is precisely this that is the main brake on democracy and proletarian struggle. In every bourgeois nationalism of an oppressed nation there is a general-democratic content against oppression, and it is precisely this content that we unconditionally support, strictly distinguishing the striving for one's own national exclusivity, fighting against the striving of the Polish bourgeois to oppress the Jew, etc., etc.

This is "impractical" from the point of view of the bourgeois and the petty bourgeois. This is the only practical and principled and genuinely helpful to democracy, freedom, proletarian union policy in the national question.

Recognition of the right to separation for all; evaluation of each concrete question of separation from the point of view that eliminates all inequality, all privileges, all exclusivity.

Let us take the position of the oppressing nation. Can a people that oppresses other peoples be free? No. The interests of freedom of the Great Russian population[35] require struggle against such oppression. A long history, a centuries-long history of suppression of the movements of oppressed nations, systematic propaganda of such suppression by the part of the "higher" classes have created enormous obstacles to the cause of freedom of the Great Russian people itself in the form of its prejudices, etc.

Great Russian Black Hundreds consciously support these prejudices and inflame them. The Great Russian bourgeoisie makes peace with them or adapts itself to them. The Great Russian proletariat cannot achieve its aims, cannot clear the path to freedom, without systematically struggling against these prejudices.

The creation of an independent and sovereign national state remains for now in Russia the privilege of the Great Russian nation alone. We, Great Russian proletarians, defend no privileges, do not defend this privilege either. We struggle on the basis of the given state, we unite the workers of all nations of the given state, we cannot guarantee one path or another of national development—through all possible paths we go toward our class aim.

But one cannot go toward this aim without struggling against all nationalism and without upholding the equality of different nations. Whether Ukraine is destined to constitute an independent state—this depends on a thousand factors unknown in advance. And, without attempting to "divine" in vain, we stand firmly on what is beyond doubt: the right of Ukraine to such a state. We respect this right, we do not support the privileges of the Great Russian over Ukrainians, we educate the masses in the spirit of recognition of this right, in the spirit of denial of state privileges of any nation whatsoever.

In the convulsions that all countries experienced in the era of bourgeois revolutions, collisions and struggles over the right to a national state are possible and probable. We, the proletariat, declare ourselves in advance opponents of Great Russian privileges and in this direction conduct all our propaganda and agitation.

Chasing after "practicalism," Rosa Luxemburg overlooked the main practical task of both Great Russian and non-Russian proletariat: the task of everyday agitation and propaganda against all state-national privileges, for the right—the equal right of all nations to their national state; such a task is our main (now) task in the national question, because only in this way do we uphold the interests of democracy and the equal union of all proletarians of all nations.

Let this propaganda be "impractical" both from the point of view of Great Russians—oppressors and from the point of view of the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations (both demand a definite yes or no, accusing the S.-D. of "indefiniteness"). In fact, it is precisely this propaganda, and only it, that ensures genuinely democratic and genuinely socialist education of the masses. Only such propaganda guarantees both the greatest chances of national peace in Russia, if it remains a variegated national state, and the most peaceful (and harmless to proletarian class struggle) division into different national states, if the question of such division arises.

For a more concrete elucidation of this, the sole proletarian, policy in the national question, we shall examine the attitude of Great Russian liberalism toward "national self-determination" and the example of the separation of Norway from Sweden.